I do respect that there are differing opinions on the matter of FOCA. Some do not feel the government should have any say in what a woman wants for her body. I also know there are many that are Pro-Life, but feel outlawing abortions is not going to solve the problem. Yes, some women will still find a way through illegal means--and many of those means are dangerous. But I still do not believe that because these women choose to endanger their own lives to end a baby's life, we should make it legal to end the baby's life. I recognize that abortion is a tough choice for most (not all) and that usually the women who choose them do not just wake up one day making that decision. I realize many women support late term abortion for medical problems, and my heart goes out to them... but, reality is, the vast majority of those abortions are NOT to save the woman's life, hence the reason we need government intervention. Like I said before, there are alternatives to killing the baby while in the womb. To quote another blogger,
"Obviously, when the life of the mother is at risk, it is justifiable to intervene, even if the baby dies. That is what pro-lifers believe. Only a thin veil separates pro-lifers and pro-choicers when the health of the mother is in danger. The nuance between the two is this: pro-lifers recognize that the standard abortion procedure is not the appropriate surgical intervention to be made in such a case. Another approach should be used that doesn't seek to kill the unborn baby so directly. Yes, it may have the same result of killing the baby (as a secondary effect), but you wouldn't use the standard abortion procedure (which is simply a seek-and-destroy mission against the unborn child). For pro-lifers, the intention is not to kill the baby but to allow surgeons access to fix the mother's health problem. If anything could possibly be done to save the baby while also saving the mother, it would be done. But if the two are mutually exclusive, it is justifiable to take an action that would save the mom and have a secondary effect of killing the baby.
Medical research has shown that there is no health condition of an expectant mother that absolutely requires the standard abortion procedures in order to save the woman's life. None. There is always another way to save the woman's life, a way that is more respectful of the unborn baby, even if the baby has to die as a secondary effect. That's the basic reasoning of pro-lifers. That's why pro-lifers believe that all forms of abortion can be banned without the risk of criminal prosecution in the case where a woman's life is in danger."
I couldn't have said it better.
For anyone else who supports abortion because a woman should be "free to have control of her own body", I have to say, Yes. A woman should have the freedom to do what is best for her body. I support women's choices in childbirth and am appalled at the Government trying to regulate where a woman can have her baby. But think about this--If a woman was hurting herself, out of depression or suicidal tendencies, we should stop her from doing so, Yes? We would not allow that to continue, and there are laws to support that.True abortion, (not the life saving actions for the mother I mentioned above) not only kills the baby, but has many negative physical and emotional repercussions for the woman. Why would we not seek to stop that action then? Another thing to ponder--If a woman is struck in the stomach while pregnant, and the baby dies in utero, that person is charged with murder or at least manslaughter (if unintentional).
In the case of Laci Peterson, people were sickened at the intentional killing of a pregnant woman--because of the loss of an Innocent's life. Why is abortion any different?
No comments:
Post a Comment